SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (424883)7/10/2003 11:38:13 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
Then I would "beef up" welfare in some way, so that it covered the elderly poor. In other words pay more for the elderly poor, so that they can live in dignity and not suffer in any way. But cut out entitlements for the "well off" completely.
Gee, why don't we just make it a death penalty offense to be rich?

Why give them any rights at all? Maybe they should have to wear yellow stars.

So it's OK to pay into SS and Medicare for 40 or 45 years as a company executive, but you can never collect?

What would you say of a life insurance company that took money for your husband's life insurance policy for 40 or 45 years, then refused to pay when he died? SS is insurance, right? Isn't that what they told us?

It isn't a crime to rich, Lizzie. Not yet, anyway.

Gee, I can remember when the possibility of getting rich was considered one of the great benefits of this country.

There are a lot of rich in this country who weren't born into wealth. Did you know that?

Here's one:
stfrancis.edu

babies and children in this society are technically the poorest.
So this makes ignoring justice and the Constitution OK?

The elderly are the wealthiest demographic. We don't need wealth redistribution laws for the elderly.
Undoubtedly. I myself have spent decades accumulating mine. Many others have too. Of course those of us who lived frugally and saved for decades have some money. This is a surprise?

So now it's OK for the guv to renege on its promises?

But if I had blown every cent that came in and gotten fired from every job, then the guv has to support me?

This makes sense?

Those drugs that cost 100K/year for example, I wouldn't allow that.
Suppose all they are doing is recovering their costs? With "orphan diseases", that can be exactly what happens. Development and approval costs can be outrageous and the number of "customers" limited.

Do you think pharmaceutical companies are charities?

When they spend their last dime, who then develops drugs?

The same outfit that brought you the space shuttle and cheap, common spaceflight?

Maybe you really should switch parties. I think you'd be more comfortable as a Democrat.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext